@famousone If he stole them I think it would say stolen not hoarding.
But I don’t think they should arrest him for having them and selling them but maybe given him a fine for up charging them by 700%
Say like so much for each one sold.
Yeah it’s a sleazy to sell stuff like that but this isn’t the 1800’s where the only place to buy stuff was the corner store. You can get groceries from amazon so I think him reselling them is only a problem for the idiots who buy them.
Yes that mask type is one the best but with proper care any mask will die.
I mean, did the FBI need to get involved, idk, but it's price gouging and that's illegal, so he very much deserves to get in legal trouble, even if he didn't steal the masks.
If he gained possession of them legally he can do whatever he wants with them that doesn't hurt anybody else. Worth noting that "not helping" isn't doing harm.
i buy latex gloves all the time for cooking and wood working and stuff. i was getting them from Walmart for 5 bucks a box but since the pandemic they don't care that brand any more. they carry a different brand, but they must be way better latex gloves because there 20 dollars a box. so this is probably just a mistake, the guy is actually selling the good ones like Walmart is. it's not like Walmart would find a way to legally price gouge in the middle of a pandemic.
No, he can't do whatever he wants with them, even if he acquired them legally. There are laws against price gouging ESPECIALLY to prevent people like that, who try to profit of a national emergency.
patriotsoftware . com/blog/accounting/price-gouging-laws-by-state/
Those laws are wrong, then. If someone legally possesses something, they ought to be able to do whatever they want that doesn't hurt anybody else. Price gouging? Ever heard of supply and demand? Demand is pretty high, and he could just as well decide not to sell to anybody. This way he gets what he wants and any clients get what they want.
Oi, fair enough then, I didn't realize "the laws are wrong" is a valid defense for illegal behaviour. My mistake.
He got it legally at an affordable price because the companies selling it were selling them at that affordable price because they followed the laws against price gouging.
Laws are often wrong. I could spend all day listing examples. What's "legal" and "illegal" is a terrible way to judge morals and ethics.
I do not support the man's choice, nor like when things are more expensive, but unless he formed a trust or monopoly, or hurt people, there is no wrongdoing.
He has a supply, there is clearly elevated demand, that means the price goes up. How high up? As high as the clients, competitors, and suppliers are willing to tolerate.
You're arguing that he got them legally so he should be free to do whatever, but also that laws are wrong, and that laws aren't a good measure of morality, but what he is doing is immoral.
Laws are rules we, as a society, decide to live by. At some point, people agreed that DURING AN EMERGENCY, maybe unrestricted capitalism wasn't the best course to go, and as a result anti-price gouging laws were created. So what he is doing is ILLEGAL. Why is it illegal ? Because society decided it was a very immoral thing to do because, again, DURING AN EMERGENCY, the standard supply / demand equilibrium is toppled.
And btw, why are the anti trust / anti monopoly laws "good" in your opinion, but anti price gouging laws are not ? Why are you a good judge of what is a "good" and a "bad" law ? Both rules exist to prevent the market from being "abused".
Anti-trust and anti-monopoly laws have been abused as well. But while that ship has sailed, they can still be reformed.
The point is that he doesn't have a monopoly, and he isn't collaborating with competition to undermine the free market.
Society has been wrong before, and is currently wrong about plenty. Telling individuals what they can do with their property, in a manner that doesn't address tangible and actual harm, is a dangerous path to walk. It is up to the individual to decide right and wrong. Surrendering that principle is cowardly and authoritarian. Nobody has any right to another's goods, services, or property.
Hmmm, buying up stuff so that people in the area don't have anywhere else to get it and you can price gouge it? That guy would've been a successful landlord.
Quite a difference between insulin and hoarding masks. Fix the real problem. 10 vials of 1000 unit novolog is $480 in Canada, $2600 in the U.S. U.S. consumers are subsidizing Canadian price controls. We pay more because they pay less. If it were fair, We’d all be paying $1550 for 10 bottles.
But I don’t think they should arrest him for having them and selling them but maybe given him a fine for up charging them by 700%
Say like so much for each one sold.
Yeah it’s a sleazy to sell stuff like that but this isn’t the 1800’s where the only place to buy stuff was the corner store. You can get groceries from amazon so I think him reselling them is only a problem for the idiots who buy them.
Yes that mask type is one the best but with proper care any mask will die.
I use it when I’m tired of texting.
It was supposed to be any mask will work
patriotsoftware . com/blog/accounting/price-gouging-laws-by-state/
He got it legally at an affordable price because the companies selling it were selling them at that affordable price because they followed the laws against price gouging.
I do not support the man's choice, nor like when things are more expensive, but unless he formed a trust or monopoly, or hurt people, there is no wrongdoing.
He has a supply, there is clearly elevated demand, that means the price goes up. How high up? As high as the clients, competitors, and suppliers are willing to tolerate.
Laws are rules we, as a society, decide to live by. At some point, people agreed that DURING AN EMERGENCY, maybe unrestricted capitalism wasn't the best course to go, and as a result anti-price gouging laws were created. So what he is doing is ILLEGAL. Why is it illegal ? Because society decided it was a very immoral thing to do because, again, DURING AN EMERGENCY, the standard supply / demand equilibrium is toppled.
And btw, why are the anti trust / anti monopoly laws "good" in your opinion, but anti price gouging laws are not ? Why are you a good judge of what is a "good" and a "bad" law ? Both rules exist to prevent the market from being "abused".
The point is that he doesn't have a monopoly, and he isn't collaborating with competition to undermine the free market.
Society has been wrong before, and is currently wrong about plenty. Telling individuals what they can do with their property, in a manner that doesn't address tangible and actual harm, is a dangerous path to walk. It is up to the individual to decide right and wrong. Surrendering that principle is cowardly and authoritarian. Nobody has any right to another's goods, services, or property.
It is illegal in plenty of states, including the state of New York.